In today’s world of open communication platforms it’s
important to be wary when faced with new information in a field that you aren’t an expert
in.
Something new that I learned today through social media is
that it’s possible that lemurs have distinct personalities (hence my lame pun
in the title). I found this little tidbit while browsing National
Geographic’s Twitter account:
The link in the tweet led me to an article on National Geographic's website, where I got to read all about a study that was conducted to see if lemurs have individual personalities.
Now, am I an expert on lemurs? No. Do I expect an article published through National Geographic to have their facts correct? Yes. This is because National Geographic has a reputation to uphold in the journalism community; they have established that they are a reliable source and therefore would not want to risk losing credibility by publishing incorrect information.
While I trust National Geographic's information on lemurs, it would be possible for nearly anyone to tweet a false fact about the creatures. This is why I tend to put more trust in tweets or Facebook posts that share a link to a reliable source that supports the point being made. The article that I read included the author's name, details about the studies conducted, and a link to the author's personal Twitter account as well as the National Geographic Twitter. These types of clear connections and transparency regarding the author make me believe that the article is giving valid information.
With an overwhelming amount of information available online, people need to be careful with what they believe and what they disregard. It is important to look for the sources of stories and not just accept information as you find it through social media.
Can some facts and ideas found in tweets or posts be true? Of course. But as an educated audience we need to look for the support that should go along with claims made online.
I'm a firm believer in searching for your own truth. I too find that I am more trusting of sites like NatGeo, Discovery and others in non-news and non-political genres.
ReplyDeleteI imagine writers for these types of media have deadlines much like news journalists? What do you suppose is the difference between them that makes non-news journalists to get it write more often? Do you think \the lack of pressure to be the first to print allows them to spend more time than news journalists? Or are there other factors I am not considering?
I think your point about being under less pressure to be the first to deliver new information is very interesting. I would agree that the sources that cater to a niche audience would have less competition in sharing a story, and I think this could allow them to be more careful in their research.
DeleteAnother factor that could lead to their higher accuracy rate might be that their target audience expects more from them. If someone seeks out this specialized information it would be either because they have an interest in the topic or they want to compare it to their own ideas on the subject. I think this could be different than the target audience for broader news journalism that is just looking for new and current facts. Would you agree with this idea?
Thanks for your thoughts!
P.S. I love lemurs!
ReplyDeleteI do too! :)
DeleteYou are not alone in your skepticism. According to author Don Tapscott who wrote the book Growing Up Digital and Grown Up Digital (both of which are really interesting), skepticism is becoming a more common trait among those who are growing up around and have extended exposure to the Internet.
ReplyDeleteThanks for you comments! I'll have to check out those books.
Delete